Headlines

Matt Lewis

By the numbers: In some cases, Romney paid four times as much as Obama for ads

So why didn’t Team Romney negotiate better rates? Since spots are typically not bumped in early September, the notion of reserving non-preemptable ads — in order to guarantee they would air — seems implausible.

According to our source, Team Obama simply did the “due diligence to find where the lowest unit rate was,” a tedious process which “takes manpower.”

Conversely, it appears Team Romney simply didn’t want bother with the hassle. So they threw money at the problem — and walked away.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Let me ask YOU a simple question: if Mitt was so much in control, so clearly the best, why did that financial genius blow so much money to pout away a b7unch of simpletons who were already, in essence, put away?

Why didn’t they counter Romney’s ads with ads of their own? Because under the assumption, they would have had money and a campaign structure, right?

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Yeah. They didn’t. I agree. The only real challenges Romney had to the nomination, I think, were Perry and Pawlenty. For those reasons (and the fact that the other candidates were too flawed from the outset). I just wish that Romney had spent the primary season making the case for himself and for free market solutions. I think that would have won the primaries for him, but also had the effect of uniting the GOP before the first debate and it would have made Obama’s summer blitz less effective. The strategy seemed to be about winning the battle with no thought for winning the war. Long term strategic vision seemed to be in short supply, as these ad buys help illustrate.

Let me ask YOU a simple question: if Mitt was so much in control, so clearly the best, why did that financial genius blow so much money to pout away a b7unch of simpletons who were already, in essence, put away?

ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM

It’s also a simple answer, one which I’ve stated twice already and you haven’t seemed to pick up on.

Free media coverage for his opponents, or rather whichever opponent was designated Not-Romney at the given time. Unless you’re going to claim that there’s no bias in the media (for which you’d be laughed right off the forum), you will acknowledge that positive coverage and boosterism for a particular candidate pays dividends that money and organization just can’t buy.

It’s also a simple answer, one which I’ve stated twice already and you haven’t seemed to pick up on.

Free media coverage for his opponents, or rather whichever opponent was designated Not-Romney at the given time. Unless you’re going to claim that there’s no bias in the media (for which you’d be laughed right off the forum), you will acknowledge that positive coverage and boosterism for a particular candidate pays dividends that money and organization just can’t buy.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 10:52 PM

That’s not an answer, that’s just restating the proposition. If these candidates were so obviously inferior, and Romney was so obviously inevitable, there’s still no reason to spend money attacking them. And you’re going to tell me that Romney didn’t have his defenders in the media and 4 years’ worth of “free media coverage”?

And you’re going to tell me that Romney didn’t have his defenders in the media and 4 years’ worth of “free media coverage”?

ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Actually, no, he didn’t. Righty media skepticism of Romney crystallized before the ink on Obamacare was dry.

Charles Krauthammer was just about Romney’s only media-intelligentsia supporter who had any credibility left with the grassroots. Will and Kristol and others were not Romney backers. Frum and Parker and their ilk had no credibility.

And since you seem to be saying that an inferior candidate with the media on his side will never defeat a superior candidate, I have to assume you’re denying the real effect of media bias. I’ll keep that in mind the next time you invoke it to defend one of your garbage candidates.

Actually, no, he didn’t. Righty media skepticism of Romney crystallized before the ink on Obamacare was dry.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Oh, come on. Fox News as a whole had been up Romney’s ass since November 5 2008. As had most of NRO. Not to mention the MSM outlets and figures for whom Romney was The Only Serious Candidate. Couple all that with a bunch of “unskewed” polls showing Romney to be some god of electability, and you have this faux juggernaut being foisted on us. The only thing Romney really was was Next In Line.

Oh, that was only YOUR fantasy. Her idea (and that of others) was to put the brakes on this unelectable squish who was being rammed down our throats.

ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Conservative opinion makers weren’t bright enough to see the obvious fact Romney was the only one with a chance to beat Obama. Palinistas like you refused to accept the judgment of the majority after we nominated Mitt. And people like me underestimated the numbers who shared your bloody-minded obstinacy.

You won. The country lost. Congratulations. Don’t complain in the next 4 years. But for dummies like you, it could have been prevented.

Well, that and actually having a campaign staff and organization beyond an inner circle of about six guys, and fundraising ability beyond prostrating himself in front of a conservative sugar daddy like Sheldon Adelson or Foster Friess.

And with regard to Fox News, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck were not fans of Romney. Hannity, for one, was BFFs with Newt Gingrich.

And as for NRO, when Rich Lowry can influence a tenth of the people that Mark Levin can influence, he should count his lucky stars.

Conservative opinion makers weren’t bright enough to see the obvious fact Romney was the only one with a chance to beat Obama. Palinistas like you refused to accept the judgment of the majority after we nominated Mitt.

Basilsbest on November 19, 2012 at 11:10 PM

And, uh, I think we were proven right. Romney still hasn’t won an election since 2002. So where did this “only one with a chance to beat Obama” come from?

Oh, come on. Fox News as a whole had been up Romney’s ass since November 5 2008. As had most of NRO. Not to mention the MSM outlets and figures for whom Romney was The Only Serious Candidate. Couple all that with a bunch of “unskewed” polls showing Romney to be some god of electability, and you have this faux juggernaut being foisted on us. The only thing Romney really was was Next In Line.ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Wah, wah, wah. Romney saved the House from suicidal idiots like you and Akin.
The Count on November 19, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Really? So for which of those in Congress did Romney campaign?
ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 11:17 PM

We’ve already had this conversation, moron. All of your candidates in contested races got their asses kicked. Romney outperformed all of them.

And, uh, I think we were proven right. Romney still hasn’t won an election since 2002. So where did this “only one with a chance to beat Obama” come from? ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 11:12 PM

He could have run in Utah and have never lost.

The believe that he was the only one with a chance to beat Obama is based on the fact that he was the only one with a chance to beat Obama.

The belief he would beat Obama is based on his outstanding academic record, his phenomenal success in business, his excellent record as Gov of Mass, his incredible turn around of the 2002 Olympics, his exemplary personal life, his mission work, his life of private charity and unspoken good deeds, his 7 years of public service at no pay. And a belief that the American electorate, yourself excepted, wasn’t so bloody stupid.

We’ve already had this conversation, moron. All of your candidates in contested races got their asses kicked. Romney outperformed all of them.

The Count on November 19, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Don’t even bother.

You can talk until you’re blue in the face about comparative election results, but the result will be the same. Romney sucks, Obama Claus won, and Gingrich or Santorum would have kicked that bastard’s ass all the way back to Kenya.

You can talk until you’re blue in the face about comparative election results, but the result will be the same. Romney sucks, Obama Claus won, and Gingrich or Santorum would have kicked that bastard’s ass all the way back to Kenya.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 11:28 PM

I never said anyone could beat Obama. I just didn’t buy into the Mittbot dogma that ( ommmmmmmmm) OnlyMittCanBeatObama ( ommmmmmm). You and your “ilk” did, you preached that for month after month after month, and even more lately with glittering visions of a Mitt landslide and Bradley Effect and Michigan’s in play! Pennsylvania’s in play! The ‘bot contingent has lost all credibility.

“Obama’s the worst president in history. A ham sandwich could beat Obama.”

-Every TrueCon, circa 2010

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 11:39 PM

No, that was you.

We were telling you that Romney wasn’t going to cut it… and he didn’t.
We told you that Romney was another John McCain and he was.
We told that Romney was too nice and he was.
We told you that Romney needed to fight back against Obama’s attack ads and we nailed that one as well.

Yeah, because that makes a load of sense. Romney folks believe a ham sandwich can beat Obama, which is why they said that Mitt was the one with the best chance to win and nominating the others risked throwing away the race.

Do you preview your posts beforehand or do you just click on the ol’ Submit button?

I’ll agree that Romney was too nice, but I’m not sure stepping down into the gutter with Obama would have mattered.

Obama got his black zombie vote to turn out en masse. He got Hispanics out voting for him by 71% because of his DREAM by fiat and Romney’s conservative posture on immigration. He got single women voting for him for the free birth control and abortion fear-mongering (special thanks to Akin, Mourdock). He got young people to vote for him because of his reversal on gay marriage. He got the enviro-freaks out with his blockage of KS-XL. Add it all up and you have a majority.

Obama got his black zombie vote to turn out en masse. He got Hispanics out voting for him by 71% because of his DREAM by fiat and Romney’s conservative posture on immigration. He got single women voting for him for the free birth control and abortion fear-mongering (special thanks to Akin, Mourdock). He got young people to vote for him because of his reversal on gay marriage. He got the enviro-freaks out with his blockage of KS-XL. Add it all up and you have a majority.

The Count on November 20, 2012 at 12:09 AM

So Obama put the effort in to secure his base, and Romney didn’t put the effort in to secure his base, and we are all shocked that Romney didn’t win?

So Obama put the effort in to secure his base, and Romney didn’t put the effort in to secure his base, and we are all shocked that Romney didn’t win? sharrukin on November 20, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Romney’s conservative platform and the selection of Ryan secured the support of rational conservatives. Your admission that the cult did not support Romney is at least refreshing. No attempt to win the support of the cult would have succeeded and would have alienated the middle.